MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <OSCPR01MB14966ED588A0328DAEBE8CB25F5FA2@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <Z7QllLMq7UbyXHAD@paquier.xyz> <OSCPR01MB149669EF7D087A588773B7E04F5FA2@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <Z7Q7vo-wWDwWw-tO@paquier.xyz> <OSCPR01MB14966559522B9699E1F769128F5FA2@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <OSCPR01MB14966F234CD3121F51810D5CCF5C52@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <Z7ZxC-xL7y_b6Yrs@paquier.xyz> <OSCPR01MB14966FCE16ECCF29AE0502AF2F5C42@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <OSCPR01MB149660520A0E53CC53E8B66F1F5C42@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAA4eK1LK5nZUWwNY31X6BUXdQwwzpKGKxnw+zFf-cWKm3nuCEg@mail.gmail.com> <OSCPR01MB149669CFD736D48C4450337DDF5CD2@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <OSCPR01MB149669CFD736D48C4450337DDF5CD2@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:43:02 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1L8_QrYavkCy9b0Rrz8gqZRQE8kEmv3g7Tz6tsN8YuvhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ReplicationSlotRelease() crashes when the instance is in the
 single user mode
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, 
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, 
	Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, 
	"Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1L8_QrYavkCy9b0Rrz8gqZRQE8kEmv3g7Tz6tsN8YuvhA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 1:29=E2=80=AFPM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Which other functions do we see similar restrictions? I checked
> > "sequence manipulation functions" (1), and "Transaction ID and
> > Snapshot Information Functions" (2) but couldn't see similar
> > restrictions.
> >
> > (1) - https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-sequence.html
> > (2) -
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-info.html#FUNCTIONS-I=
NF
> > O-SNAPSHOT
>
> I grepped sources and could not find explicit limitations neither. So...t=
his might
> be overkill.
>

Yes, this is my worry.

>=E3=80=80But I still think the restriction is OK for the slot - no need to=
 do
> some efforts for accepting single-user mode, just close the cover.
>

I understand that we may not have a clear use case for this to work in
single-user mode. But how will we define the boundary in similar
cases? I mean, we should have some rule for such exposed functions,
and it should be followed uniformly. Now, if one needs a bigger or
complex change to make the function work in single-user mode, then it
is easy to take an exception from what is currently being followed in
the code. However, if the change is as trivial as you proposed in the
first email, why not go with that and make this function work in
single-user mode?

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.